Comparative Study
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Conventional landmark palpation vs. preprocedural ultrasound for neuraxial analgesia and anaesthesia in obstetrics - a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analyses.

Anaesthesia 2021 June
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the efficacy, time taken and the safety of neuraxial blockade performed for obstetric patients with the assistance of preprocedural ultrasound, in comparison with the landmark palpation method. The bibliographic databases Central, CINAHL, EMBASE, Global Health, MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science were searched from inception to 13 February 2020 for randomised controlled trials that included pregnant women having neuraxial procedures with preprocedural ultrasound as the intervention and conventional landmark palpation as the comparator. For continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively, we calculated the mean difference using the inverse-variance method and the risk ratio with the Mantel-Haenszel method. In all, 22 trials with 2462 patients were included. Confirmed by trial sequential analysis, preprocedural ultrasound increased the first-pass success rate by a risk ratio (95%CI) of 1.46 (1.16-1.82), p = 0.001 in 13 trials with 1253 patients. No evidence of a difference was found in the total time taken between preprocedural ultrasound and landmark palpation, with a mean difference (95%CI) of 50.1 (-13.7 to 113.94) s, p = 0.12 in eight trials with 709 patients. The quality of evidence was graded as low and very low, respectively, for these co-primary outcomes. Sub-group analysis underlined the increased benefit of preprocedural ultrasound for those in whom the neuraxial procedure was predicted to be difficult. Complications, including postpartum back pain and headache, were decreased with preprocedural ultrasound. The adoption of preprocedural ultrasound for neuraxial procedures in obstetrics is recommended and, in the opinion of the authors, should be considered as a standard of care, in view of its potential to increase efficacy and reduce complications without significant prolongation of the total time required.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app